We use cookies to customise content for your subscription and for analytics.If you continue to browse Lexology, we will assume that you are happy to receive all our cookies. For further information please read our Cookie Policy.

Oops . . . You’ll just have to wait

So, we were preparing a post for today on Sparks v. Oxy-Health, LLC, et al, Case No. 5:13-cv-649-FL, slip op. (E.D.N.C. Sept. 15, 2015) – an opinion we pulled off a national news source. But, we just learned that the opinion was filed under seal and subject to a confidentiality order. Unlike mainstream reporters, as officers of the court, we are not going to violate a confidentiality order. The order calls for the parties to propose redactions to the court by today and we anticipate the decision will be unsealed shortly after that – at which time, we’ll bring you our full analysis.

For now, all we can say is that it is a complete summary judgment win for defendants implicating several key legal concepts – such as off-label use, product misuse, failure to heed warnings, the “sham” affidavit rule, causation and foreseeability. There’s more, but we aren’t prepared to go into any greater detail at this time. Stay tuned.

Compare jurisdictions: Arbitration

“I enjoy the CLANZ newsstand and find it highly relevant to my job. I definitely have forwarded various articles to my colleagues on occasion where there is a point of general interest, particularly employment or IT law. I really appreciate the service, it's a quick way for me to keep up to date in a way I wouldn't otherwise have time to.”